Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeals in part. It held the assessee cannot claim deduction under s.80IA(4) for work done on projects awarded to two JVs because the JVs, as the enterprises/developers, are entitled to the deduction and the same project cannot yield duplicate s.80IA benefits to both JV and constituent; accordingly the s.80IA claim in respect of JV-executed works is disallowed. Deduction under s.80IAB was refused as the assessee was a contractor, not the government-notified SEZ developer. The s.14A disallowance was upheld in proportion to exempt JV profits. Certain specified contracts that did not create new infrastructure were excluded from s.80IA relief; AO directed to exclude profits from those three projects.
ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeals in part. It held the assessee cannot claim deduction under s.80IA(4) for work done on projects awarded to two JVs because the JVs, as the enterprises/developers, are entitled to the deduction and the same project cannot yield duplicate s.80IA benefits to both JV and constituent; accordingly the s.80IA claim in respect of JV-executed works is disallowed. Deduction under s.80IAB was refused as the assessee was a contractor, not the government-notified SEZ developer. The s.14A disallowance was upheld in proportion to exempt JV profits. Certain specified contracts that did not create new infrastructure were excluded from s.80IA relief; AO directed to exclude profits from those three projects.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
